and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

Show Tags

03 Sep 2012, 06:46

1

This post receivedKUDOS

6

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64%(02:30) correct
36%(01:59) wrong based on 493 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

Show Tags

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduceunemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who acceptjobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workerscheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above whatgovernment assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore,unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle themto the supplement. Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriouslyweakens the argument of the editorial?A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals andtheir families.B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must payan employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than jobseekers who are unemployed.D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than theyearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

Can an expert please explain why C is the answer

according to A if the gov collects no taxes for the unemployed it is a financial incentive so it weakens the argument/conclusion where itt states that the unemployed have no Financial incentive with this

I would go with C because in the overall argument it would prove that the unemployed get lower paying jobs hence no financial incentive

Please explain and thankyou for your help and time....

Responding to a pm:

The question is about financial incentives.

This is what the situation is: Say, the govt pays $400/week to the unemployed. Someone who is getting less than $400/week in a job will not work. He will instead like to be unemployed and receive $400. Now, the govt is planning to supplement the income of people who get less than $400. Say, if you get $300/week, the govt will give you $100 to make it $400 but not more than $400.

Conclusion: Unemployed people will have no financial incentiveto accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Makes sense, right? Whether you work or you don't you still make only $400. So you might have other incentives to work e.g. you like work etc but you don't have a financial incentive to work. What will weaken this conclusion? It will be weakened if you can find a financial incentive that will make people work.

(C) says that people who are already employed get better pay if they switch jobs (as compared to those who are unemployed). This could be a financial incentive for people to take up jobs. They take low paying jobs right now but still get $400 (after adding govt supplement) and later switch and get better paying jobs, possibly jobs that pay more than $400. Hence, this option gives us a financial incentive.

(A) actually strengthens the argument, if at all. A - "The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families."If the govt collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals, the unemployed will get $400/week. But the employed will pay taxes on their salary ($300) and may not pay taxes on $100 of govt assistance but overall they will make less than $400. So there is certainly no financial incentive to work. Instead, you make less money if you work. This makes a better case for the author's opinion which is "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs"
_________________

Show Tags

03 Sep 2012, 08:12

1

This post receivedKUDOS

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals andtheir families.B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must payan employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than jobseekers who are unemployed.D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than theyearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

i do not see any reason why C is not the answer

A) The fact that the goverment do not collect taxes NOt weaken the argument at all

B) out of scope

D) We do not care about is less than

E) This is not a reason to take a job and not weaken the argument

C) Wins

if you take a job then you can change your job and take another JOB payed better

Show Tags

17 Sep 2012, 21:32

venmic wrote:

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduceunemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who acceptjobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workerscheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above whatgovernment assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore,unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle themto the supplement. Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriouslyweakens the argument of the editorial?A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals andtheir families.B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must payan employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than jobseekers who are unemployed.D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than theyearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

Can an expert please explain why C is the answer

according to A if the gov collects no taxes for the unemployed it is a financial incentive so it weakens the argument/conclusion where itt states that the unemployed have no Financial incentive with this

I would go with C because in the overall argument it would prove that the unemployed get lower paying jobs hence no financial incentive

Please explain and thankyou for your help and time....

This was a good one ! I could land up on C only using the POE however, Karishma has explained it very well.
_________________

Show Tags

02 Oct 2013, 04:36

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Show Tags

23 Nov 2013, 20:09

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduceunemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who acceptjobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workerscheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above whatgovernment assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore,unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle themto the supplement. Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriouslyweakens the argument of the editorial?

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.

D. The financial assistance that the govt provides to people who have no other income is less than average starting wage.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

The argument is same but one of the options is changed. The OA is still C but what is wrong with D. In option D the unemployed has incentive to take up jobs as the assistance provided is less than the average starting wage.

Show Tags

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduceunemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who acceptjobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workerscheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above whatgovernment assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore,unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle themto the supplement. Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriouslyweakens the argument of the editorial?

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.

D. The financial assistance that the govt provides to people who have no other income is less than average starting wage.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

The argument is same but one of the options is changed. The OA is still C but what is wrong with D. In option D the unemployed has incentive to take up jobs as the assistance provided is less than the average starting wage.

Supplement will be paid to people whose starting wage will be less than the govt assistance. It doesn't matter what the AVERAGE starting wage is. Say, it is $1000 a month and assistance paid is $800. We are concerned about people who get $600 as starting wage. The govt is planning to provide supplement to them since they don't take up the $600 job since they get $800 for sitting at home and doing nothing. The argument is saying that these people who will get $600 will still not work even if govt pays them $200 supplement because they get $800 anyway even if they just sit at home. Then why work? (financially speaking)What actually weakens the argument is that people who start with $600 (and get $800 due to the supplement) get higher paying jobs subsequently. So financially it does make sense since after 6 months they may get $1000 job. If they will just take the assistance and sit at home, they will get $800 only after 6 months too.
_________________

Show Tags

15 Apr 2015, 01:41

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Show Tags

27 Nov 2015, 16:11

My pre-thinking was that employed people get benefits, at no cost, that otherwise would cost $$.since the answer choice did not provide anything similar, I eliminated the rest and got to the C. If employed people can get better $$ in time, then definitely being employed is better than not being employed.